No More BS About BS!
- Thread starter SubRosa
- Start date
- Status
Pardon me Rb but why are you putting words into my mouth? Please quote exactly where I said anything even remotely on the same planet as "Why TTA, please don't honor yourself at all thinking my comment had anything to do with you."
When you said "Nothing like over confusing the issue for the home aquarist." you insulted the intelligence level of a lot of folks.
And it is not a question if one wants to agree with the data or not. The data is used as long as and until new better data comes along which is shown to completely replace or to diminish it in some way. So if one wants to say the data from the cumulative research on this topic to date is unacceptable, they need to show why. We need equal caliber data that shows what is there now is incorrect or incomplete and must be rejected and replaced. It takes a bit more than you, or anyone else, simply saying they don't have to agree. You don't have to agree that the earth is a ball either, so what? I will, of course, apologize if you are willing to show your real life credentials in the scientific community place you on a par with Leger et al or Dr. Toonen. Otherwise cite somebody who says the data isn't valid because and then shows what the valid data really is. That is how science gets done.
Rb- why don't you comment on the fact the the very same researchers quoted by Sub-Rosa did subsequent research which essentially said the same things I posted about from Dr Toonen? Here are the very same people saying data 1 has been replaced by data 2 because we learned a lot more? Which one is wrong? Those guys (and many more) do work over 27 years to get to where things are today and you dismiss the data. Based on what?
Rb how the heck would you know what info is out there on nutritional contents of live food and the enrichment techniquies? Unless you are a scientist in this area, you would have had to do what Sub, or I or several other posters in this thread did. We made an effort to find some. What I posted was information that was a great advancement on what Sub had. It was the next 20+ years of research into the subject. So if you want to say that this data is not good, I say PROVE IT. Show us a reason besides your say so.
I would remind you that Sub posted this
Read the research because it has changed radically- HUFAs, enrinchment technique, cyst quality are now all known considerations in producing feeder shrimp with the highest nutritional value. There is a different diet for raising brine shrimp as well as other similar sorts of live foods. This is actually a big business in aquaculture. Where do you think the highest quality brine eggs go?
Artemia is such a dead topic that when I Google Scholar for: "nutritional value of artemia as fish food" I get back 7,200 hits. If I look for just "artemia" I get back 65,000. Of course I am excluding patents. Clearly artemia related research is far from being a dead subject. Interestingly enough, when I did the Google Scholar search for artemia, the first study of the 65,000 returned was the one Sub referenced.
Basically the difference between what I posted and what you posted is that I linked to real research involving real scientists and relevant information on the topic of the thread. And you posted exactly what?
An Sub- same challenge to you. You want to say Dr. Toonen is wrong- please state your degrees and work experience in the related fields here. Please link you your published research on anything related to this topic. I am sure more folks than I would like to see why either you or Rb have any credibility when you refute years of research by real scientists with real degrees working in real labs and doing real field research. If you don't have the credentials, ay least show us the research that does so.
When wither of you do, you I will be happy to respond further.
When you said "Nothing like over confusing the issue for the home aquarist." you insulted the intelligence level of a lot of folks.
And it is not a question if one wants to agree with the data or not. The data is used as long as and until new better data comes along which is shown to completely replace or to diminish it in some way. So if one wants to say the data from the cumulative research on this topic to date is unacceptable, they need to show why. We need equal caliber data that shows what is there now is incorrect or incomplete and must be rejected and replaced. It takes a bit more than you, or anyone else, simply saying they don't have to agree. You don't have to agree that the earth is a ball either, so what? I will, of course, apologize if you are willing to show your real life credentials in the scientific community place you on a par with Leger et al or Dr. Toonen. Otherwise cite somebody who says the data isn't valid because and then shows what the valid data really is. That is how science gets done.
Rb- why don't you comment on the fact the the very same researchers quoted by Sub-Rosa did subsequent research which essentially said the same things I posted about from Dr Toonen? Here are the very same people saying data 1 has been replaced by data 2 because we learned a lot more? Which one is wrong? Those guys (and many more) do work over 27 years to get to where things are today and you dismiss the data. Based on what?
Rb how the heck would you know what info is out there on nutritional contents of live food and the enrichment techniquies? Unless you are a scientist in this area, you would have had to do what Sub, or I or several other posters in this thread did. We made an effort to find some. What I posted was information that was a great advancement on what Sub had. It was the next 20+ years of research into the subject. So if you want to say that this data is not good, I say PROVE IT. Show us a reason besides your say so.
I would remind you that Sub posted this
Read the research because it has changed radically- HUFAs, enrinchment technique, cyst quality are now all known considerations in producing feeder shrimp with the highest nutritional value. There is a different diet for raising brine shrimp as well as other similar sorts of live foods. This is actually a big business in aquaculture. Where do you think the highest quality brine eggs go?
Artemia is such a dead topic that when I Google Scholar for: "nutritional value of artemia as fish food" I get back 7,200 hits. If I look for just "artemia" I get back 65,000. Of course I am excluding patents. Clearly artemia related research is far from being a dead subject. Interestingly enough, when I did the Google Scholar search for artemia, the first study of the 65,000 returned was the one Sub referenced.
Basically the difference between what I posted and what you posted is that I linked to real research involving real scientists and relevant information on the topic of the thread. And you posted exactly what?
An Sub- same challenge to you. You want to say Dr. Toonen is wrong- please state your degrees and work experience in the related fields here. Please link you your published research on anything related to this topic. I am sure more folks than I would like to see why either you or Rb have any credibility when you refute years of research by real scientists with real degrees working in real labs and doing real field research. If you don't have the credentials, ay least show us the research that does so.
When wither of you do, you I will be happy to respond further.
Hmmm...pretty much what you do all the time, when your chosen party doesn't at all.
Some of your recent statements...
"Read the research because it has changed radically"
"Artemia is such a dead topic"
same question back to you...
Rb how the heck would you know what info is out there on nutritional contents of live food and the enrichment techniquies? Unless you are a scientist in this area,
Just because folks don't fall and bow to your info/links and agree with them doesn't validate what you posted.
Read a dictionary, learn the definitions of "nutrition" and "void", and then research how necessary protein is to the health of fishes and get back to me. Feel free to discuss it with Dr Toonen, or better yet a 9th grade English teacher to get a better handle on the situation than you currently seem to have. I'm confident that if this argument was presented to him, Dr Toonen would agree he could have chosen better words to describe the nutritional value of artemia.
Nothing like tiny shrimp to bring out the heated debate. 
SubRosa is basically right in his stance, since the brine shrimp is a semantic one. "Nutritional value". For some that means, can the fish live off it alone (usually the people writing fancy articles). For others it means, does the fish get any nutrition from it (Sub). The first group is silly, since most human foods lack nutritional value by their definition. A better choice of words would be that brine shrimp do not necessarily offer a balanced diet alone.
SubRosa is basically right in his stance, since the brine shrimp is a semantic one. "Nutritional value". For some that means, can the fish live off it alone (usually the people writing fancy articles). For others it means, does the fish get any nutrition from it (Sub). The first group is silly, since most human foods lack nutritional value by their definition. A better choice of words would be that brine shrimp do not necessarily offer a balanced diet alone.
So let me see if I understand things here. On one side we have Dr. Rob Toonen, Ph.D. So lets see what we can learn about his side of things.
2008 - present
Associate Research Faculty
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, The Hawai'I
Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Coconut Island, Kaneohe, HI.
2003 - 2008
Assistant Research Faculty
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, The Hawai'I
Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Coconut Island, Kaneohe, HI.
2002
Research Associate
Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis,
2002 Ph.D. Population Biology. Center for Population Biology, University of
California, Davis, CA. Dissertation Title: Molecular Genetic
Analysis of Recruitment and Dispersal in the Intertidal Porcelai
Crab, Petrolisthes cinctipes.
1993 M.Sc. Marine Sciences. Department of Biological Sciences, University of
North Carolina, Wilmington, NC. Thesis Title: Environmental a
Heritable Components of Settlement Behavior of Hydroides
dianthus (Serpulidae: Polychaeta).
1991 B.Sc. Honours Zoology. Department of Zoology, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB. Thesis Title: Limitations of laboratory assessm
of coelenterate predation: Container effects on the feeding
preference of the Limnomedusa, Proboscidactyla flavicirrata
I wanted to list all the papers etc, but there are to many pages of them. Anybody who would like to see the list can find them here. His biography runs 13 pages long several of which list his peer reviewed research. Oh yes, he is also a peer reviewer for others researchers.
[url]http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hawaii.edu%2Fhimb%2Fdocs%2FTOONEN_04-2010%2520CV.pdf&ei=gSO_UZ6jI4_K4AOk74FY&usg=AFQjCNE-MijDjCEtTK84XKjoIzgoR_mxCg&bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmg[/URL]
And now lets look at Sub's qualifications. He works in an LFS and he has a dictionary. If I have got this wrong and he does have graduate degrees in a related field, if he is published in peer reviewed journals, if he is a hands on researcher, I apologize in advance and do so humbly.
2008 - present
Associate Research Faculty
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, The Hawai'I
Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Coconut Island, Kaneohe, HI.
2003 - 2008
Assistant Research Faculty
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, The Hawai'I
Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Coconut Island, Kaneohe, HI.
2002
Research Associate
Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis,
2002 Ph.D. Population Biology. Center for Population Biology, University of
California, Davis, CA. Dissertation Title: Molecular Genetic
Analysis of Recruitment and Dispersal in the Intertidal Porcelai
Crab, Petrolisthes cinctipes.
1993 M.Sc. Marine Sciences. Department of Biological Sciences, University of
North Carolina, Wilmington, NC. Thesis Title: Environmental a
Heritable Components of Settlement Behavior of Hydroides
dianthus (Serpulidae: Polychaeta).
1991 B.Sc. Honours Zoology. Department of Zoology, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB. Thesis Title: Limitations of laboratory assessm
of coelenterate predation: Container effects on the feeding
preference of the Limnomedusa, Proboscidactyla flavicirrata
I wanted to list all the papers etc, but there are to many pages of them. Anybody who would like to see the list can find them here. His biography runs 13 pages long several of which list his peer reviewed research. Oh yes, he is also a peer reviewer for others researchers.
[url]http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hawaii.edu%2Fhimb%2Fdocs%2FTOONEN_04-2010%2520CV.pdf&ei=gSO_UZ6jI4_K4AOk74FY&usg=AFQjCNE-MijDjCEtTK84XKjoIzgoR_mxCg&bvm=bv.47883778,d.dmg[/URL]
And now lets look at Sub's qualifications. He works in an LFS and he has a dictionary. If I have got this wrong and he does have graduate degrees in a related field, if he is published in peer reviewed journals, if he is a hands on researcher, I apologize in advance and do so humbly.
Nice credentials. They prove absolutely nothing, since if credentials alone mattered in tge slightest then science would never change.
A PHD doesn't make a person infallible.
A PHD doesn't make a person infallible.
Thanks, Khemul. I've been debating long and hard whether I should say this. There have been a couple people lately who are *certain* that because someone with a doctorate says something, it *must* be proof positive, irrefutable, unquestionable gospel. Sometimes, even people with great education can be wrong. That's sometimes the cause of scientific advancement.
Yep. The other problem, especially in the area of food and nutrition, is that people (even the PHDs) want to treat all fish the same.
For instance, in saltwater, a Dragonet, some Blennies and some Gobies will live off copepods and amphipods exclusively. But those foods may not offer full nutrition to other fish of the same size. A Guppy offers poor nutrition to a Lionfish. In both fresh and salt we have fish that survive off algae, doesn't mean algae tabs are a balanced diet for Oscars. Blanket statements at the extremes just don't work with this type of thing, no matter the credentials of the source.
- Status
